Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"


Article: "Spin Me Round: Why Vinyl is Better Than Digital"

I am sharing this for those with an interest. I no longer have vinyl, but I find the issues involved in the debates to be interesting. This piece raises interesting issues and relates them to philosophy, which I know is not everyone's bag. So, you've been warned. I think the philosophical ideas here are pretty well explained -- this is not a journal article. I'm not advocating these ideas, and am not staked in the issues -- so I won't be debating things here. But it's fodder for anyone with an interest, I think. So, discuss away!

https://aestheticsforbirds.com/2019/11/25/spin-me-round-why-vinyl-is-better-than-digital/amp/?fbclid...
8700e65e 845e 4b1b 91cc df27687f9454hilde45
Sorry but he lectures just like you do,
I dont lecture people....I will remind you of my posts ... It seems you dont remember...

I use digital by the way and favor it...BUT i dont condemn like idiots all those who dont...

I dont think that there is an ABSOLUTE frontier that makes digital superior or analog superior...

It is all up to the wise choices of electronic components...

It is all up to the wise choices of the way each one electronic components is embedded mechanically electrically and acoustically in the Room/house.... THIS IS MY POINT.....




Then when you come LECTURING anyone here about your theorem and ACCUSING vinyl people to be a bunch of IGNORANT...Because they prefer "colored" tone to accuracy... I have seen RED....like a bull... I dont like someone accusing anybody to be ignorant if he dont understand Nyquist theorem.... You dont know with who you speak here...

I posted then my opinions about the fact that TIMBRE is an acoustical human perceived experience and a musical one which cannot be reduced to NUMBERS...It is the human EARS who perceive,..Science create models of this perception and try to understand it.... Only robotic try to reduce it.... Pure science is NOT robotic....Robotic is part of science not PURE science...

Then you rant about my ignorance of the Nyquist Shannon theorem...And suddenly you depart for a beer with Mijostyn...





The matter from hot became cold...Then...

THEN i put a non polemical article for general reader here by a mathematician from Scientific American that is cool ,simple to read, and you came back from nowhere, after quitting the discussion with myjostyn, who by the way said he will not read my post anymore(very comical gesture Children like) I dont give a dam...

In the meantime a vinyl fad post after reading this article and distorting his content, said that it is a bad article, she is incompetent... Because she dont endorse vinyl absolute incontestable superiority for sure😛

Then from nowhere audiodesign come and distorting also the article, accuse a mathematician about his understanding of Fourier series which is elementary Maths by the way, said she is incompetent...and affirm also that the article is bad...Because she dont conclude against turntable lover that digital is absolutely superior 😛

Irony supreme, the vinyl head and the digital head after their distorted reading condemn TOGETHER the mathematician for incompetence... 😎🤪😁



The problem is that Fourier series is chid play for a mathematician...Nyquist theorem also...

The irony is also that even if she said in his article the SAME THING that you said for the same reason. the Nyquist theorem: there is no mathematical reason to pretend analog containing more information than digital... Digital she said is able to reproduce any analog set of information in conformity with Nyquist theorem...

You distort anyway his standing knowledge and his article to bash me because i used this article ...You lied...You know that she cannot be incompetent in Fourier series analysis...All mathematician knows these things even me...If you dont lied you are stupid...Chose one...

The reason for your bashing of the article is not his competence it is the fact that this mathematician woman UNLIKE you dont condemn vinyl people to ignorance and i said the samething for my own reasons in this thread...

She knows that in philosophy of science human perception is the last and first station of any measuring apparatus...If someone said the contrary it is called the accuracy fallacy in philosophy of science...

And then UNLIKE you she condemn NO ONE to be ignorant, she suspend wisely his judgment...Like a TRUE scientist...

This is a wise woman, but you are not wise my friend...


By the way giving his opinion like i do his not lecturing people, but accusing an entire group of people to be ignorant is not always wise, especially if it is a group of people liking music with their own experience and ears...And condemning human perception for the sake of some theorem used in a distorted way is not science ... It is ideology or obsession... technological hubris perhaps? It is you that lecture people not me...

They dont understand Nyquist Theorem, who give a dam... The ears evaluate musical timbre not robot .... For the time being....



Oh deary me, 
"Aber Kinder vertragt Euch doch bitte!" 🥰

And a HAPPY NEW YEAR to all! 👍 😅 👏 
Michélle 🇿🇦 
Post removed 
On that score @Mahgister links to a much better article than the original one that started the thread. I suppose @Audio2Design didn’t actually read it before he dismissed it. I’m talking about the one in Scientific American. It’s clear, concise, uncontroversial, and contains a key point right at the end: digital uses math to reproduce the signal, while analog doesn’t.


I read it completely. Difference between me and you is understood it. Likely understand the math as well as the author, probably way more experience with it, and far far more understanding of the practical aspects of it. It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know.

If you understood the math and practical implications you would realize that your beloved "analog" is not remotely the "real" thing and is a far poorer representation of reality than digital. You simply love the high crosstalk (centers image especially in acoustically poor setups), you like the surface noise (gives a sense of space), you like the softened transients (easy old the ears) and perhaps you like all the inaccuracies in your setup that warm the sound or brighten it for older ears. You probably like the higher distortion too which again can create an artificial but false sense of space. Given the typically poor acoustics most "audiophiles" live with I can see the attraction.

But ... Some of us choose not to delude ourselves that vinyl or tape is superior for accurate recreation. You may like it. I often do. But I am quite aware of why and it is not remotely because it is realistic or true to the source. It is not.
@madavid0 got it spot on with the first post he did as did @millercarbon 
this is regrettably a vacuous snake oil set of reasons and has no basis at all. Digital is actually wide bandwidth so where they got compression from I do not know. The truth was very eloquently explained by the editor of Stereo magazine at the high end audio show in Windsor a few years ago and he was quoting a recording engineer whose name I have unfortunately lost. Imagine a cartridge in a groove as a pen on a seismograph at the top and bottom of the movement - at always creates a curve over a square shape. He demonstrated to the audience identical recordings in both formats in similar systems ie all Nagra save for the turntable which was an SME- same price. Some liked the vinyl and some the digital. As humans we are organic/analogue - digital is not that. I just accept the advantages of each format although I was in the larger group that preferred vinyl